The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

The seized Aluminium shot net shall be a certificate.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles (after the submission period of the Reasons for Appeal, the defendant asserted at the first date of pleading, or on June 27, 2013, the contents stated in the summary of pleadings submitted by the defendant by the defense counsel, or the scope of supplement in case of “other matters” as stated in the statement of grounds for appeal submitted by the defendant) (1) The defendant was only aware that the victims were the Dominator, and the facts as public officials were not known, and did not intend to interfere with the execution of official duties in relation to the order to deliver real estate, and there was no intention to commit the crime of causing obstruction

Nevertheless, there is an error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the fact that the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case.

(2) D, an execution officer affiliated with the Daegu District Court Kimcheon Branch, the victim of the instant apartment, was entrusted by the purchaser of the instant apartment, before the execution of the order for delivery of real estate, and D, the execution officer of the order. This was first directed to deliver the respondent to the respondent in order to alleviate the non-proced compulsory execution against the dwelling of the respondent of the order for delivery, and it is for the convenience and interest of the respondent in the event the respondent does not comply with it.

Since the enforcement department is an arbitrary procedure that does not have a legal provision, if there is no seal on the apartment of this case subject to the execution, it shall not be an execution order, and if there is no seal on the apartment of this case, it shall go back without the execution order, and be exempted from notification as to whether it is impossible to perform its duties under Article 16 of the Execution Officer Act, or attaching a place of execution order on the door of apartment. Therefore, the execution officer who is subject to the execution order does not have the right to compulsorily open the door of the apartment of this case pursuant to Article 5 of the Civil Execution Act, and even if there is such right, there is no need to infringe

Therefore, this case.